Doug,
I’d really like to know how the determination is made for when a word transitions from being completely acceptable to becoming derogatory. I mean, who makes that decision? Is it one person, a committee, a societal consensus (and in the latter case, which element of society, and is that an element that truly and accurately speaks for the majority)? It certainly doesn’t seem to be a very democratic process. I doubt if the word “gay” made the transition from being happy and carefree to being homosexual by virtue of the majority of the population wanting it to be that way. And it lends itself to all kinds of potential confusion. If you call someone “gay” who is care-free and happy yet is heterosexual, is that person supposed to view it positively or negatively? Ditto with any group of people represented by the one meaning or the other. You can be one thing one day and then someone decides to slap a different label on you without your permission and, poof, now you’ve got complications. It’d be helpful if there were a central clearing house for acceptable and unacceptable terms and terms could only be changed if a majority approved the changes. Also, the frequent linkage of these altered word meanings with Orwellian type authoritarian governments such as communism or fascism is troubling.
On a personal level, I don’t particularly like being referred to as “cis-gender”. I find it that term derogatory. I also don’t like the term “privilege”, especially when preceded by the word “white” and especially when the accused person may have, in reality, had less privilege than the one accusing them of such. In fact, I don’t even like the word, “white”. When we think of white, we think of pasty, anemic, unhealthy people or even worse, people drained of blood or even dead. I’m not joking about this. Who decided to call white people “white” or who agreed to accept the term, when in fact, lighter skinned people present with a whole array of coloration, none of which is actually white (like a polar bear or white dove).
Frankly, I find this growing obsession with and over-sensitivity to perceived or real mislabeling to be more divisive, offensive, and conflict creating than the situation that those purveying these concepts are hoping to ameliorate. I think that too often, in the hopes of being kind and well meaning, the opposite effect can often be generated.
I found this well written article on the subject that expresses a lot of my personal feelings on the subject.
https://harpers.org/archive/2019/12/lefty-lingo/
And of course, this timeless video explains the origins of much (but certainly not all) thought in this area.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaBpVzOohs
Jan,
I am sorry my use of the word ‘retarded’ offended you. That was certainly not my intention. In my lexicon it means what I intended it to mean - a person of limited intelligence - which is not the same as a person with a mental disability. However, when I looked it up in my dictionary, I found that the word is “now dated and usually offensive” so I plead ignorance and being educated in England before the meaning morphed into something new. Please accept my apology.
However, as you yourself noted, replacing ‘retarded’ with ‘people with a mental health disability’ ruins the elegance of my prose, but it also does not accurately convey my meaning. What I really meant to say was “ It should be obvious to all but the most stupid or oblivious…”. Would that be OK?
Regards
Boomer
Speaking of retarded…the Federal Reserve and all of these central bankers are fucking retarded.
Or perhaps the Federal Reserve and said bankers are quite brilliant, and we’re all just fucking retarded for putting up with it for as long as we have?
If you think the discourse is “offensive” now just wait until this everything bubble pops. Suspect very few will give two shits about politically correct articulation once the crunch sets in.
Or perhaps the Federal Reserve and said bankers are quite brilliant, and we’re all just fucking retardedSince the Fed has presided over this massive transfer of wealth from voters to the top 1% with barely a peep, I think we all know who is bright and who is not.
It would seem that there are some ruffled feathers… I am not offended in any way, well, except for perhaps mildly by Time2help, whose last comment is just plain rude. I come to this site for intelligent debate, not shallow ignorance by people that discount issues that they do not perceive as being worthwhile. Last time I looked civility in discourse was still a highly values trait.
I try to capitalize on teachable moments. If even one person on this site now reconsiders using the term retarded in a derogatory manner then I have succeeded in what I set out to do in my first comment. Yay!
Plant good seeds - seeds of inclusiveness and caring about our behaviours, and watch them grow. That too is an important part of respectful community building.
Jan
ao
"I’d really like to know how the determination is made for when a word transitions from being completely acceptable to becoming derogatory. "
My experience is that words take on new meanings through common usage, sort of a consensus type process. And, sometimes words have two meanings, thus the origin of the term double entendre.
Your example of the word gay and its evolution over time is instructive, although I don’t think most gay people would be offended by being called gay. That does, however, remind me of an incident from when I was in fifth grade. My teacher, a well-spoken and kindly grandmotherly sort, and my parents had a parent teacher conference. This was about 60 years ago. In the course of the conversation the teacher referred me as “a queer child”, a term my parents found amusing since they were aware of the double entendre, but my teacher was not. She merely meant that I was not a conventional child and I’m sure she would have been shocked to learn the sexuality connotation. That word was considered derogatory for a long time, but has now been kind of readopted by the gay community to identify a particular segment of the community.
“You can be one thing one day and then someone decides to slap a different label on you without your permission and, poof, now you’ve got complications. "
One person slapping a derogatory label on some word probably says more about the name caller than it does about those he/she is labeling. It is only when such meaning becomes generally accepted that it becomes a issue.
" It’d be helpful if there were a central clearing house for acceptable and unacceptable terms and terms could only be changed if a majority approved the changes. Also, the frequent linkage of these altered word meanings with Orwellian type authoritarian governments such as communism or fascism is troubling.”
Wow, this sounds like yet another “deep state” conspiracy theory. There is no Orwellian authority dictating such things. In fact, your suggestion of having a clearing house for definitions would seem to me to be a step in that direction. Languages evolve organically through common usage. Dictionaries just try to keep up.
“On a personal level, I don’t particularly like being referred to as “cis-gender”.”
Another wow. I have never heard that term before. What does it mean?
As far as privilege or even white privilege goes, I have long considered myself to have been extraordinarily privileged to have been born white and male in mid-20th century America. Man, talk about hitting the lottery. The only real complaint I have is that I wasn’t born rich. Damn the fertility gods.
But again, languages evolve. We can either adapt or go mad taking offense.
Thanks Jan for that instructive note.
As a voice of consensus reason your insights are always illuminating Doug.
doug-
One of your pals - who was in a position to know - had something instructive to say about “deep state” conspiracy theories:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrPaoTpNKZw
What he said was: “thank God for the Deep State.”
And then he went on to describe the permanent bureaucracy in Washington and how they resist any attempt by elected officials to change what these Deep State folks believe as the correct approach to - whatever, really.
Which is pretty much the definition of Deep State.
So now you can rest easy. Deep State has moved from “conspiracy theory” to accepted worldview, just like all these words we have been talking about going through transformation from “normal” to “offensive.” You too can use the phrase “deep state” without fear of ridicule by your former deep state pals because its use has been normalized by both common usage and now has the express blessing by your friendly CNN-approved former Obama intel people.
I know it is tough - you have to be flexible in order to move with the times. One day something is a ridiculed “conspiracy theory”, and the next day it is not only approved, but actually blessed by people from your own team!
High school Latin in 1961 taught me that the term Cisalpine means “on this side of the Alps” and Transalpine means “on the far side of the Alps”. To see the word “cis” used in any context other than the Alpine feels odd. “Trans” is not so bad; we see it used nowadays all over the place. Language and usage change.
It probably doesn’t help to know that in Classical Latin “cis” is pronounced “kiss”.
since organic chemistry cis-trans described geometric isomerism. Helped in pushing electrons.
Michael, Thank you for sharing your situation with us all - you and the other poster’s have unknowingly helped me feel comforted. (part of the power of Peak Prosperity) My 68 year old father has also had a very recent diagnosis of stage 4 lung cancer. As a strong and fit farmer who never smoked it’s shattered his world and sent him into anger and spiritual turmoil. He’s playing the western medicine treatment game, though resigned to death. It’s big news and carries a lot of emotional work for everyone involved. I’m sure you don’t need my advice, however all I can say is stay true to what you recognise as your life path, and teach and love your loved ones. As a sufferer of anaphylaxis I know time is just shorter for some of us than others.
http://news.trust.org/item/20191223102815-rp1cx
Aiming an AR-15 rifle across a Colorado valley dotted with antelope and cattle, Drew Miller explains how members of his new survival ranch would ride out an apocalypse. The former U.S. Air Force intelligence officer said his latest Fortitude Ranch community, under construction below mountain forests, will shelter Americans fleeing anything from a bioengineered pandemic to an attack on the electricity grid. For an annual fee of around $1,000, members can vacation at the camps in good times, and use them as a refuge during a societal collapse. "If you've got a lot of weapons, if you've got a lot of members at guard posts, defensive walls, we don't think we're going to need to fight," said Miller, crouching on top of a fortified position on the camp perimeter. The expansion of Miller's camp chain underscores the growing mainstream appeal of the "prepper" movement long associated with anti-government survivalists. In recent years prepping has overlapped with millennial interests in renewable energy, homesteading, minimalist living and concerns about climate change. Then there is politics. Increasingly, Miller said, clients fear sharp political divisions will deepen around the Nov. 3, 2020 U.S. presidential election. "There is growing concern that after the 2020 election there could be massive, long-lasting civil unrest if people say, 'Hey, I don't buy the new president, I don't recognize him or her,'" said Miller, who has added "civil war" to his risk scenarios. Skeptics said Fortitude Ranch was preparing for catastrophic events that were unlikely and possibly not worth surviving.I doubt I could resist joining a group like this if the annual fee was $1,000 and my view of “the plan” and the people involved was satisfactory. But I doubt I’d do it in a state like Massachusetts, New York or Connecticut where I’d expect what was left of the government would be my biggest concern in a collapse of Mad Max proportions.